- Google LLC v. Withrow Networks Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 25, 2026 · IPR2025-00775 · APJ Justin T Arbes · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–9 are unpatentable as obvious over each of the five asserted §103 grounds, including Carmel with Mattavelli and Carmel with Wang.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner argues that at the relevant time of the invention claimed in the ’849 patent (April 2005),2 a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or an equivalent field requiring learning computation principles, and two years of work experience in networking or streaming media systems, particularly audio and video, over the Internet,” where “[a]dditional education could compensate for less practical experience and vice versa.” Pet. 5–6 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 18–23). In the Decision on Institution, the Board agreed with and applied Petitioner’s proposed definition. Dec. on Inst. 9–11. Patent Owner proposes a very similar definition of “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field, and two to three years of experience in the design or development of (1) video processing systems, audio processing systems, and/or the equivalent; and (2) networking and communications systems, or the equivalent,” where “[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, or significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education.” PO Resp. 23 2 Petitioner states that it “uses [the earliest possible priority date of April 18, 2005] as the priority date of the challenged claims.” Pet. 6. Patent Owner agrees that the “earliest effective filing date” of the challenged claims is April 18, 2005. PO Resp. 19. The ’849 patent is expired. See Ex. 1001, codes (63), (*); Paper 8, 33. would be the same under either level” of ordinary skill in the art. Id. Based on the full record developed during trial, including our review of the ’849 patent and the types of problems and solutions described in the ’849 patent and cited prior art, we maintain the previously adopted definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art, but remove the term “at least” to avoid unnecessary ambiguity. Our analysis herein, however, would be the same under either party’s proposed definition.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Petitioner states in the Petition that it “does not presently contend that any term requires express construction.” Pet. 6. Patent Owner “does not believe any terms of the ’849 [p]atent require express constructions for purposes of” this proceeding. PO Resp. 24; Sur-Reply 11. The Board did not interpret any terms in the Decision on Institution. Dec. on Inst. 8. We agree that no terms require express interpretation to determine whether Petitioner has met its burden to prove unpatentability of the challenged claims. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Because we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy,’ we need not construe” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“Finally, Petitioner explains in detail why and how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the teachings of Carmel and Mattavelli, with a reasonable expectation of success. See Pet. 50–55. Specifically, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have modified Carmel’s system to use “Mattavelli’s CGD techniques to optimize the decoding of in more efficient network bandwidth usage and improved playback of multimedia data streams. Id. at 50, 52–53, 55. Petitioner contends that Carmel and Mattavelli are both directed to processing multimedia data playback “for the appreciation of a user,” while providing the highest perceived audio and video output quality possible in view of system constraints to ensure playback continuity. Id. at 50–51 (citing Ex. 1003, 7:35–49, 10:48–54, 11:9–18, Figs. 3D, 6B; Ex. 1004, 2309–10). Petitioner argues that Carmel and Mattavelli both pertain to compression of multimedia data using well-known coding and compression standards for video streaming. Id. at 51 (citing Ex. 1003, 7:25–26, 11:24–52; Ex. 1004, 2309–11). Petitioner further asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated that Carmel and Mattavelli “complement[]” each other because Carmel addresses constraints on available network bandwidth and Mattavelli addresses limits on available processing resources at the client/multimedia player. Pet. 52 (citing Ex. 1003, code (57), 7:36–41; Ex. 1004, 2309–2312). According to Petitioner, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the complementary teachings in Carmel and Mattavelli to create a more robust streaming system that addresses both bandwidth constraints and client processing limits to provide the best possible playback experience. Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 212–215). Petitioner also contends that Mattavelli teaches that merely optimizing transmission bandwidth is not sufficient and is potentially harmful, which provides an express motivation to combine Carmel’s and Mattavelli’s complementary teachings to ensure that different, related links in the streaming playback chain are optimized together. Id. at 53 (citing Ex. 1002 express disclosure that would have motivated a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Mattavelli’s complementary teachings regarding decoding because Carmel states that multimedia playback is achieved “preferably with only a minimal necessary transmission and decoding delay.” Id. at 53–54 (quoting Ex. 1003, 10:50–54; citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 218). Patent Owner in its Response does not dispute that Carmel and Mattavelli teach the preamble and limitations 1[a.i]–1[c.i], or that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the references’ teachings in the manner asserted by Petitioner.6 Nonetheless, the burden remains on Petitioner to demonstrate unpatentability. Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1378 (discussing the burden of proof in inter partes review). Having reviewed Carmel and Mattavelli, on the complete trial record, we agree with Petitioner’s analysis, as supported by the testimony of” slip op. at 22
Patent outcomesUS 10,771,849 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,771,849 - Google LLC v. Withrow Networks Inc.InstitutedPTAB · Sep 29, 2025 · IPR2025-00775 · APJ Jason J Chung · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–9 and all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim is unpatentable, including over Carmel and Mattavelli.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“1. Principles of Law A claim is unpatentable under § 103 if the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter, as a whole, “would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations, including (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of skill in the art; and (4) when in evidence, objective indicia of obviousness or non-obviousness (i.e., secondary considerations, such as commercial success, long-felt but unsolved need, failure of others, etc.).5 Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). We analyze the asserted grounds based on obviousness with the principles we identify above in mind.” slip op. at 9
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Factors pertinent to a determination of the level of ordinary skill in the art include “(1) the educational level of the inventor; (2) type of problems encountered in the art; (3) prior art solutions to those problems; (4) rapidity with which innovations are made; (5) sophistication of the technology; and (6) educational level of active workers in the field.” Envtl. Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 713 F.2d 693, 696 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (citing Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. All Orthopedic Appliances, Inc., 707 F.2d 1376, 1381–82 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). “Not all such factors may be present in every case, and one or more of these or other factors may predominate in a particular case.” Id. at 696–97. Relying on the testimony of Dr. Polish, Google argues the following: [a] person of ordinary skill in the art . . . would have possessed at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or an equivalent field requiring learning computation principles, and two years of work experience in networking or streaming media systems, particularly audio and video, over the Internet. Additional education could compensate for less practical experience and vice versa.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“In the Petition, Google states that it “does not presently contend that any [claim] term requires express construction.” Pet. 6. In response, Withrow acquiesces; in particular, Withrow argues “the Board need not construe any terms of the ’849 Patent. Petitioner does not contend any [claim] terms require express construction.” Prelim. Resp. 13 (citing Pet. 6). Based on the preliminary record, there is no readily discernible controversy between the parties that requires us to construe any claim terms at this time. See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“Turning to rationale to combine, Google contends that Carmel and Mattavelli are both directed to processing multimedia data playback “for the appreciation of a user,” while providing the highest perceived audio and video output quality possible in view of system constraints to ensure playback continuity. Pet. 50–51 (citing Ex. 1003, 10:48–54, 11:9–18, 7:35– 49, Figs. 3D, 6B; Ex. 1004, 2309, 2310). Google argues that both Carmel and Mattavelli pertain to compression of multimedia data using well-known coding and compression standards for video streaming. Pet. 51 (citing Ex. 1003, 7:25–26, 11:24–52; Ex. 1004, 2309–2311). Google argues a PHOSITA would appreciate both Carmel and Mattavelli complement each other because Carmel pertains to addressing constraints to available network bandwidth, whereas Mattavalli relates to addressing limits on available processing resources at the client/multimedia player. Pet. 52 (citing Ex. 1003, Abstract, 7:36–41; Ex. 1004, 2309–2312). Google argues that a PHOSITA would have been motivated to combine the complementary teachings in Carmel and Mattavelli to create a more robust streaming system that addresses both bandwidth constraints and client processing limits to provide a best possible playback experience. Pet. 52 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 212–215). Google argues that Mattavelli teaches merely optimizing transmission bandwidth is not sufficient and is potentially harmful, which provides an express motivation to combine Carmel’s and Mattavelli’s complementary teachings to ensure that different, related links in the streaming playback chain are optimized together. Pet. 53 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 216–217; Ex. 1004, 2310). In addition, Google argues Carmel contains an express disclosure that would have motivated a PHOSITA to combine Carmel with Mattavelli’s complementary teachings because Carmel states that multimedia playback is achieved “preferably with only a minimal necessary transmission and decoding delay.” Pet. 53–54 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 218; Ex. 1003, 10:50–54). Withrow does not specifically respond to these arguments, except for limitations 1[c.ii] and 1[c.iv] discussed infra. See generally Prelim. Resp. Nonetheless, the burden of persuasion remains on Petitioner to demonstrate unpatentability. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Based on the preliminary record, we discern no deficiency in Google’s characterizations of Carmel, Mattavelli, or the general background knowledge in the art. In addition, for purposes of institution, we are persuaded by Dr. Polish’s testimony concerning the relevant disclosures in Carmel and Mattavelli.” slip op. at 22
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,771,849 - Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Umbra Technologies Ltd.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 28, 2025 · IPR2024-00270 · APJ Gregg I Anderson · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 15–20 were not shown unpatentable because Hankins did not teach limitation 15.3; claims 1–14 were disclaimed.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposal of the level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 6. Petitioner’s proposal is supported by the Reddy Declaration and is consistent with the ’595 patent and the asserted prior art. Accordingly, we apply Petitioner’s articulation in our obviousness evaluation below.” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“B. Claim Construction Beyond plain and ordinary meaning, Petitioner does not propose any term for claim construction. Pet. 13. Patent Owner does not argue any claim construction issue. See generally PO Resp. The argument and evidence provided by the parties regarding limitation 15.3 is dispositive. See Section II.E. below. Our analysis of limitation 15.3 does not turn on any claim construction question. Id. Accordingly, we do not need to construe any claim term. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). We apply the plain and ordinary meaning of all claim terms, as would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art, in the context of the ’595 patent.” slip op. at 14
- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentOther
“D. Claims 1–14 as Obvious Over Kommula As already noted, Patent Owner has disclaimed claims 1–14. Ex. 3001. We do not analyze claims 1–14 as the challenge is mooted by the filing of the Statutory Disclaimer.” slip op. at 15
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“350 receiving a request for a listing of “services” from a gateway device and provisioning one or more tunnel servers has not been shown to teach generating “a list of available servers.” There is no persuasive evidence to support Petitioner’s assertion. Petitioner relies on unsupported argument because, at best, Hankins discloses gateway devices 311 and 321, each of which is located in different logical broadcast domains, requesting services from one another. Ex. 1005, 12:9–16. This particular disclosure, however, does not appear to implicate the functionality of Hankins’s controller 350, much less result in controller 350 generating a list of available tunnel servers that would allow gateway devices 311 and 312 to exchange a listing of “services” therebetween. Petitioner’s reliance on Hankins’s controller 350 provisioning additional tunnel servers both to improve performance and without human intervention fares no better. Ex. 1005, 25:45–55. There is no indication in Hankins that this provisioning performed by controller 350 is done in response to receiving a request for a list of available tunnel servers from either gateway device 311 or 312.” slip op. at 20
Patent outcomesUS 11,108,595 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,108,595 - Align Technology, Inc. v. Dental Monitoring SASAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 16, 2025 · IPR2024-00110 · APJ Kara L Szpondowski · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, and 4–6 are unpatentable as obvious over Kim, Invisalign, and Salah.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“The parties agree that the proposed levels of ordinary skill in the art are “not materially different.” PO Resp. 4; Reply 2. The difference, essentially, is that Patent Owner more explicitly describes the members on the interdisciplinary team, and argues that it would be necessary to consult with such individuals, particularly with persons experienced in dentistry or orthodontics, whereas Petitioner’s proposal states that one “could” consult with such individuals. However, Patent Owner’s argument that it would be necessary for a person of ordinary skill in the art to consult with an individual having experience in dentistry and/or orthodontics is narrower than Patent Owner’s proposed level of skill in the art, which describes “individuals familiar with medical imaging, dental imaging, dentistry, and/or orthodontics.” PO Resp. 4 (emphasis omitted, emphasis added). Neither party presents any argument explaining how the differences in the respective educational backgrounds and work experience in the proposed definitions affect the dispute. Having considered the parties’ respective arguments and the evidence of record, we adopt a modified version of the parties’ proposals, and determine for purposes of this Decision that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have an advanced degree, such as a Masters’ Degree or Ph.D. in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or a related field, with at least two years of work in computer vision, image analysis, medical imaging, or related areas. Further, a person of ordinary skill in the art could have less education but significant professional experience in one or more of these fields, and could be a member of an interdisciplinary team which would have included individuals familiar with medical imaging, dental imaging, dentistry, and/or orthodontics.” slip op. at 10
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“We are satisfied that Dr. Foroosh qualifies as a person of ordinary skill in the art. First, Dr. Foroosh has the required educational background, with, for example, a Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering, a Master of Science in Electrical Engineering, a Master of Science in Computer Science and Engineering, and a Ph.D in Computer Science. Ex. 1003, 7; Ex. 1002 ¶ 3. Second, Dr. Foroosh has the required work experience, with, for example, research in machine learning, deep learning, and neural networks, image and video processing and analysis, and computer vision. Ex. 1003, 2, 4–8; see also id. at 9–13 (list of projects), 14–29 (list of publications), 32 (list of interdisciplinary research); Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 2–5 (describing work experience), 6–9 (describing research experience). Dr. Foroosh has also been part of interdisciplinary research efforts including those relating to the medical or dental fields, such as, research on the intersection of computer vision and augmented reality in medical and surgical interventions. Ex. 1003, 32; Ex. 1002 ¶ 12. Dr. Foroosh describes a research project, Modeling and Visualization of Muscoloskeletal Structures in Dental CT-Scan (2006–2007), where he “developed algorithms for [threedimensional (‘3D’)] registration, modeling and visualization of maxilla and mandible of patients for dental surgery using Computer Aided Tomography (CAT) scanning.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 6. He describes another project for the National Science Foundation, which “was directed to the registration/alignment of dental CT scans of patients over a period of time during the treatment of a patient, with the purpose of improving the quality of 3D models, e.g., corrections and noise removal in 3D CT scans.” Id. ¶ 7. He was also a co-author on Alignment of Maxillofacial CT Scans to Stone- Cast Models Using 3D Symmetry for Backscattering Artifact Reduction, Proceedings of Medical Image Understanding and Analysis Conference (MIUA) (2006), and an adviser for a dissertation directed to “Sub-pixel Registration in Computational Imaging and Applications to Enhancement of Maxillofacial CT Data,” which “focused on registration and alignment of 2D images and 3D digitized data obtained by dental CT scans and dental imprints of a patient.” Id. ¶¶ 8, 9. Although Dr. Foroosh is not a dentist or orthodontist, we determine that the breadth of his background, as fully set forth in Exhibit 1003, qualifies him to provide testimony from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art. In short, we agree with Petitioner that Dr. Foroosh has “ample experience with medical and dental imaging,” as set forth above. Reply 2 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 6–9; Ex. 1003, 14, 15, 21, 26, 32). Moreover, we are afforded broad discretion in assigning weight that is to be accorded expert testimony. See Yorkey v. Diab, 601 F.3d 1279, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“[T]he Board was well within its discretion to give more credibility to [one expert over another] unless no reasonable trier of fact could have done so.”); see also CTPG6 34–36. In the analysis that follows, when applicable, we weigh the credibility of Dr. Foroosh’s testimony, including with respect to Patent Owner’s arguments regarding Dr. Foroosh’s testimony on the Invisalign reference, and provide our reasons therefore.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“proposed constructions. As there is no dispute between the parties, and after reviewing the complete record, we determine that express construction of “interior tooth outline,” “exterior tooth outline,” and “shape of an orthodontic aligner” is not necessary for purposes of this Decision. Further, Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s interpretation of limitations 1(1) and 1(2), or Petitioner’s identification of the corresponding function and structure in limitation 1(3). We agree with Petitioner that step 2 of claim 1 recites a conditional limitation, that, if met, is not needed to be performed. See, e.g., Cybersettle, Inc. v. Nat’l Arbitration Forum, 243 F. App’x 603, 607 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“It is of course true that methods steps may be contingent. If the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed.”). This is supported by the Specification: In one embodiment, the dentition image is the aligner image. In other words, the same updated image makes it possible not only to see the aligner outline 28 but also to see the dentition outline 16, through the aligner (FIG. 3). This single image therefore makes it possible to compare aligner 20 and dentition outlines. Advantageously, readjustment step 2), described later, is not needed. Ex. 1001, 6:15–20 (emphasis added). Further construction of limitations 1(1) and 1(2) is not necessary for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“f) Conclusion Independent Claim 1 Therefore, we determine that, on the complete record, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that independent claim 1 would have been obvious over the combination of Kim, Invisalign, and Salah. 5. Remaining Claims Petitioner contends that the combination of Kim, Invisalign, and Salah teach the additional limitations of claims 2 and 4–6 and, in support, identifies certain passages and figures in the references and explains their significance with respect to the corresponding limitations. Pet. 34–46. Patent Owner does not separately challenge these contentions. See generally PO Resp. We have reviewed Petitioner’s contentions, which we find persuasive and adopt as our own. Therefore, we determine that Petitioner has also shown those claims to be unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. Id.” slip op. at 49
Patent outcomesUS 11,109,945 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,109,945 - PTAB · Feb 11, 2025 · IPR2024-01143 · APJ St John Courtenay III · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–8 were unpatentable under any of its anticipation or obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2024).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Not reached
“Verizon Wireless, Ericsson Inc., and Nokia of America Corporation (collectively, “Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”) requesting an inter partes review of claims 1–8 (“challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,664,059 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’059 patent”). Innovative Sonic Limited (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 12, “Prelim. Resp.”). With our authorization, Petitioner filed a Preliminary Reply (Paper 13, “Prelim. Reply”) and Patent Owner filed a Preliminary Sur-reply (Paper 14, “Prelim. Sur-reply”), each of which is narrowly tailored to address Petitioner’s stipulation provided in response to Patent Owner’s arguments for discretionary denial under Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (Order Authorizing Supplemental Briefing on Discretionary Denial) (precedential), and the resulting impact of that stipulation.1” slip op. at 2
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“the “[p]etition equates [3GPP-4.60-v860-Specification’s] variables ‘V(A)’ and ‘V(S)’ with the ’059 [p]atent specification’s ‘VT(A)’ and ‘VT(S)’, instead of mapping [3GPP-4.60-v860-Specification’s] variables to the claim language.” Prelim. Resp. 21-22 (citing Pet. 24–25 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 81)) (emphasis added). As noted above, anticipation of a patent claim requires a finding that the claim at issue “reads on” a prior art reference. See Atlas Powder, 190 F.3d at 1346. This requires Petitioner to read or “map” each limitation of claim 1 to the corresponding feature found in the 3GPP-4.60- v860-Specification. Petitioner has not done so here.” slip op. at 19
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“As an initial matter, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit guides that, “[e]ven when obviousness is based on a single prior art reference, there must be a showing of a suggestion or motivation to modify the teachings of that reference.” In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2000). But here, we note the evidence relied upon to support Petitioner’s proposed motivation to modify the 3GPP-4.60-v860- Specification is found in paragraphs 98–100 of Dr. Hass’s declaration (Ex. 1002), which merely repeat the identical language from pages 33–35 of the Petition. We thus find this declaration evidence unpersuasive because it is conclusory, and it does not set forth a suggestion or motivation to modify the 3GPP-4.60-v860-Specification. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 98–100.” slip op. at 27
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,664,059 - AT&T Services Inc. / T-Mobile USA, Inc. et al. v. Innovative Sonic Ltd.Institution deniedPTAB · Feb 4, 2025 · IPR2024-01144 · APJ Michael R Zecher · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because AT&T failed to show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–22 were obvious over either Nokia and the 3GPP-Standard or Ericsson and the 3GPP-Standard.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“§ 42.4(a), we may not institute an IPR unless the information presented in the Petition and any responses thereto shows “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Taking into account Innovative Sonic’s Preliminary Response, AT&T’s Preliminary Reply, and Innovative Sonic’s Preliminary Sur-reply, we conclude that the information 1 We do not reach whether we should exercise our discretion to deny the Petition under Fintiv because, as we explain below, we deny the Petition based on the merits. See infra Sections II.B.5 and II.C.1. presented in the Petition does not establish that there is a reasonable likelihood that AT&T would prevail in demonstrating at least one of claims 1–22 of the ’489 patent is unpatentable. We, therefore, deny AT&T’s Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“Relying on the testimony of Dr. Hansen, AT&T argues the following: [a]s of the earliest claimed priority date, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention of the ’489 patent . . . would have had a [Bachelor of Science] in Electrical Engineering or a related field with at least three years of experience designing, developing, and/or testing telecommunication systems. A [person of ordinary skill in the art] would also have familiarity with the wireless standards and well-known protocols for accessing wireless networks. More education may supplement practical experience or vice versa. Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 368). In the Preliminary Response, Innovative Sonic does not address AT&T’s assessment of the level of skill in the art. See Prelim. Resp. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt AT&T’s uncontested assessment of the level of skill in the art because it is consistent with the ’489 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 13
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“issue fares no better. With one exception, Dr. Hansen, relies on the same disclosures of the Update for 3GPP TS 36.331 v.9.4.0 to support his testimony, which, as we explain above, does not account for the plain language of the disputed limitation. Compare Pet. 26–27, 43, with Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 87–90. In addition, Dr. Hansen testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that “the E-UTRAN configuring the UE with one or more SCells would necessarily include the configuring of at least one SCell by a source eNB to a UE.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 91 (emphasis added). But neither AT&T nor Dr. Hansen establish inherency in its obviousness analysis. See PAR Pharm., Inc. v TWI Pharms., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1194– 95 (Fed Cir. 2014) (recognizing that “inherency may supply a missing claim limitation in an obviousness analysis,” but limiting the doctrine of inherency “only when the limitation at issue is the ‘natural result’ of the combination of prior art elements” (quoting In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581 (C.C.P.A. 1981)). Apart from the conclusory assertion above, Dr. Hansen does not identify sufficient evidentiary support demonstrating that the requirement identically recited in each of independent claims 1 and 12 of “configuring at least one SCell by a source eNB to a User Equipment (UE)” would have been the “natural result” flowing from the Update for 3GPP TS 36.331 v.9.4.0’s disclosure of the E-UTRAN configuring the UE with at least one SCell. PAR Pharm., 773 F.3d at 1195. Accordingly, we do not credit Dr. Hansen’s testimony that implicates the doctrine of inherency because it not supported by evidence of record.” slip op. at 17
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“In the Petition, AT&T contends that “the Board does not need to expressly construe any [claim] terms to resolve the arguments presented herein” because the asserted prior art “discloses all limitations under any plausible construction.” Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1002 (Declaration of Dr. Christopher Hansen) ¶ 456). In the Preliminary Response, Innovative Sonic “agrees with [AT&T] that no [claim] term needs to be construed.” Prelim. Resp. 4 (citing Pet. 14). For purposes of this Decision, there is no readily discernible controversy between the parties that requires us to construe any claim terms at this time. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 10
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,237,489 - PTAB · Jan 29, 2025 · IPR2024-01159 · APJ Michael R Zecher · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–27 were unpatentable over the asserted PayPal-based obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“We agree with Autoscribe’s argument that PayPal Express Checkout does not teach the “providing” steps of independent claim 1 and 25 and the “receiving” step of independent claim 15 for two reasons. First, as we explain in our claim construction analysis above, we decline to adopt M&A Ventures’s proposed construction of the “providing” and “receiving” steps as being limited temporally such that not providing the data token to the payer only occurs “during execution of the token retrieval function.” Instead, we construe the “providing” and “receiving” steps in accordance with their plain and ordinary meanings, which includes giving the negative limitation recited therein (i.e., not providing the data token to the payer) patentable weight, without limiting the occurrence of this negative limitation during execution of the token retrieval function. See supra Section II.A.1. With this construction in mind, step 4 of the PayPal Express Checkout flow run in the sandbox environment plainly sends the Payer ID, which M&A Ventures maps to the claimed “data token,” to the buyer. Ex. 1006, 17, 25–26; see also Pet. 64 (arguing PayPal’s Payer ID teaches the “non-sensitive electronic data token” (emphasis omitted)), 67 (arguing the same). Because PayPal sends the Payer ID to the buyer during the PayPal Express Checkout flow, PayPal provides the data token to the payer and, therefore, violates the negative limitation required by the “providing” and “receiving” steps.” slip op. at 31
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner
“We must look to all the intrinsic evidence of record, including the claim language itself, the specification of the ’621 patent, and its prosecution history, to determine whether the “providing” steps of independent claims 1, 8, and 25, and the “receiving” step of independent claims 15 and 23, should be limited temporally such that not providing the data token to the payer only occurs “during execution of the token retrieval function.” See, e.g., DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 469 F.3d 1005, 1014 (Fed. Cir. 2006)(“In determining the meaning of the disputed claim limitation, we look principally to the intrinsic evidence of record, examining the claim language itself, the written description, and the prosecution history, if in evidence.”).” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“We agree with Autoscribe’s argument that PayPal Express Checkout does not teach the “providing” steps of independent claim 1 and 25 and the “receiving” step of independent claim 15 for two reasons. First, as we explain in our claim construction analysis above, we decline to adopt M&A Ventures’s proposed construction of the “providing” and “receiving” steps as being limited temporally such that not providing the data token to the payer only occurs “during execution of the token retrieval function.” Instead, we construe the “providing” and “receiving” steps in accordance with their plain and ordinary meanings, which includes giving the negative limitation recited therein (i.e., not providing the data token to the payer) patentable weight, without limiting the occurrence of this negative limitation during execution of the token retrieval function. See supra Section II.A.1. With this construction in mind, step 4 of the PayPal Express Checkout flow run in the sandbox environment plainly sends the Payer ID, which M&A Ventures maps to the claimed “data token,” to the buyer. Ex. 1006, 17, 25–26; see also Pet. 64 (arguing PayPal’s Payer ID teaches the “non-sensitive electronic data token” (emphasis omitted)), 67 (arguing the same). Because PayPal sends the Payer ID to the buyer during the PayPal Express Checkout flow, PayPal provides the data token to the payer and, therefore, violates the negative limitation required by the “providing” and “receiving” steps.” slip op. at 31
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,620,621 - Mediatek Inc. v. Parkervision, Inc.InstitutedPTAB · Nov 26, 2024 · IPR2024-00796 · APJ Iftikhar Ahmed · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–20, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1 and 11 would be obvious over Nevo and Avitabile.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2022). To institute an inter partes review, we must determine that the information presented in the Petition shows “a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Based on the information presented in the Petition and the supporting evidence, we are persuaded that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of the challenged claims on the grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“Stipulate[s] and agree[s] that, if the PTAB institutes an inter partes review proceeding (“IPR”) for U.S. Patent No. 7,483,686 on the grounds presented in [the Petition], [Petitioner] will not pursue an invalidity defense in [the Western District of Texas Litigation] that the patent claims subject to the instituted IPR are invalid based on the same grounds as in the [P]etition or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised in the [P]etition. Ex. 1015 (letter from M. Bernstein to J. Charkow, dated May 21, 2024); see also Prelim. Reply 1 (“Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response (Paper 6) fails to acknowledge, much less address, Petitioner’s Sotera stipulation not to pursue in the related litigation the same grounds or any grounds of invalidity that could reasonably have been raised in this IPR.”); Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (Dec. 1, 2020) (Decision Granting Institution) (precedential as to § II.A).” slip op. at 8
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or a related subject and two or more years of experience in the field of [radio frequency (‘RF’)] circuit design, or at least five years of work experience and training in the design and development of RF circuits and/or systems,” and “[l]ess work experience may be compensated by a higher level of education, such as a master’s degree.” Pet. 14–15 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 38). Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill in the art in its Preliminary Response. See generally Prelim. Resp. We determine, on the current record, that Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill is consistent with the ’686 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d at 1579. We adopt that level of ordinary skill in the level of ordinary skill in the art based on the full trial record. slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Petitioner contends that all claim terms should be given their plain and ordinary meaning. Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 74). Petitioner, however, notes that several claim terms in the ’686 patent, or closely related claim terms for patents related to the ’686 patent, have been construed during prior litigation involving Patent Owner. Id. Petitioner discusses five claim terms and various constructions proposed or adopted in prior litigation. Id. at 15–20.” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,483,686 - PTAB · Nov 26, 2024 · IPR2024-00934 · APJ Michael R Zecher · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 19–21 on all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim would be unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“On June 21, 2022, the Director issued interim guidance in the form of a memo that further clarifies how we should approach analyzing the Fintiv factors. See Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation at 3, available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/interim_proc_discretion ary_denials_aia_parallel_district_court_litigation_memo_20220621_.pdf. Notably, the Director stated that “the [Patent Trial and Appeal Board (‘PTAB’)] will not discretionarily deny institution in view of parallel district court litigation where a petitioner presents a stipulation not to pursue in a parallel proceeding the same grounds or any ground that could have been reasonably raised before the PTAB.” Id. With this interim guidance in mind, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution of this proceeding under Fintiv because TI filed a Sotera stipulation. Pet. 80; Ex. 1041.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“construed as “indirectly or directly connecting such that an electrical signal can flow between”; and (2) “impedance device” was construed as “a device that exhibits an impedance.” Id. at 6. Even though TI identifies four claim terms in total in the Petition, TI argues that the asserted prior art renders the challenged claims unpatentable under any reasonable construction of those claim terms. See, e.g., id. at 4 (arguing that the “prior art analyzed here renders the claims unpatentable under either [party’s] constructions” proposed in the district court case), 6 (arguing that the “prior art renders the Challenged Claims unpatentable under . . . the [Board’s] constructions”). In its Preliminary Response, ParkerVision does not address TI’s proposed constructions, nor does ParkerVision identify additional claim terms that would require construction at this stage in the proceeding. See Prelim. Resp. Based on the preliminary record, there is no readily discernible controversy between the parties that requires us to construe any claim terms at this time. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 11
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“§ 42.4(a), we may not institute an IPR unless the information presented in the Petition and any preliminary response thereto shows “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Taking into account ParkerVision’s Preliminary Response, we conclude that the information presented in the Petition establishes that there is a reasonable likelihood that TI would prevail in demonstrating at least one of claims 19– 21 of the ’342 patent is unpatentable. Pursuant to § 314, we hereby institute an IPR as to claims 19–21 of the ’342 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“For purposes of institution, there is sufficient evidence in the record that enables us to determine the knowledge level of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Relying on the testimony of Dr. Galton, TI argues the following: [a] person of ordinary skill in the art . . . as of the ’342 Patent’s priority date (April 14, 2000) would have had a least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or a related subject and two or more years of experience in the field of EM circuit design. Less work experience may be compensated by a higher level of education, such as a master’s degree. Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 28–30). In its Preliminary Response, ParkerVision does not address TI’s assessment of the level of skill in the art. See Prelim. Resp. At this stage of the proceeding, we adopt TI’s uncontested assessment of the level of skill in the art because it is consistent with the ’342 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 13
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,496,342 - Vizio, Inc. v. Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.Institution deniedPTAB · Nov 22, 2024 · IPR2024-00722 · APJ Sharon Fenick · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because it could not determine with reasonable certainty the scope of “a different user interface device” to assess the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“an analysis to assess “whether the prior art discloses rendering something other than the second navigation bar” if a second user interface cannot contain that second navigation bar. Prelim. Reply 3–4. But our goal would not be to determine whether the prior art teaches or suggests “rendering something other than the second navigation bar” (Prelim. Reply 3), but rather whether the prior art teaches or suggests “rendering a different user interface device” (Ex. 1001, 55:26–29). In Samsung, the Federal Circuit notes that “the proper course for the Board to follow, if it cannot ascertain the scope of a claim with reasonable certainty for the purposes of assessing patentability, is to decline to institute the IPR or, if the indefiniteness issue affects only certain claims, to conclude that it could not reach a decision on keeping with this general direction from our reviewing court, and because no exception curing the impossibility of reaching a determination regarding unpatentability appears in this case, we do not institute an inter partes review. Given our conclusion that we cannot determine the scope of the claim term “a different user interface device” with reasonable certainty for purposes of assessing patentability, we decline to institute inter partes review on the grounds presented.” slip op. at 16
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“After considering the determinations in the District Court Order, we agree with the district court that we cannot ascertain with reasonable certainty the scope of the claim term “a different user interface device.” See Ex. 2001, 25 (the district court explaining that “‘user interface device’ in the claim and in view of the intrinsic evidence, as emphasized by counsel’s 3 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated . reasonable certainty those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention.”). As the district court found, the ’168 patent specification uses the term “user interface device” inconsistently, for example, describing “four different user interface devices” in a navigation bar including the “movies user interface device 2204” in Figure 22A. Id. at 23 (citing Ex. 1001, 45:19–20, 45:27–29). Additionally, the specification appears to describe user interface devices with reference to the rows in Figure 22B, and other parts of the specification also describe selectable interface elements as “user interface device[s].” Ex. 1001, 45:33–37 (cited at Ex. 2001, 23–24), 41:31– 45, 46:67–47:2, 47:18–21, 48:18–20. Still further, the specification appears to describe a menu as a type of user interface device. Id. at 49:3–5 (cited at Ex. 2001, 24), 51:17–19 (same). In addition to these citations from the District Court Order, we note that the term “user interface device” is used when describing a user selecting a specific year from a display of years provided on a user interface: “If user selection 1460 is selected by the user using a user interface device, a new user interface presentation is provided.” Id. at 40:39–46 (emphasis added). On the record before us, we agree with the district court that, based on the ambiguity in the specification, “it is indiscernible what subset of the user interface, if any, is the user interface device.” Ex. 2001, 24. Therefore, we conclude that we cannot determine the scope of the claim term “a different user interface device” with reasonable certainty for purposes of assessing patentability.” slip op. at 13
- BurdenNot reached
“an analysis to assess “whether the prior art discloses rendering something other than the second navigation bar” if a second user interface cannot contain that second navigation bar. Prelim. Reply 3–4. But our goal would not be to determine whether the prior art teaches or suggests “rendering something other than the second navigation bar” (Prelim. Reply 3), but rather whether the prior art teaches or suggests “rendering a different user interface device” (Ex. 1001, 55:26–29). In Samsung, the Federal Circuit notes that “the proper course for the Board to follow, if it cannot ascertain the scope of a claim with reasonable certainty for the purposes of assessing patentability, is to decline to institute the IPR or, if the indefiniteness issue affects only certain claims, to conclude that it could not reach a decision on keeping with this general direction from our reviewing court, and because no exception curing the impossibility of reaching a determination regarding unpatentability appears in this case, we do not institute an inter partes review. Given our conclusion that we cannot determine the scope of the claim term “a different user interface device” with reasonable certainty for purposes of assessing patentability, we decline to institute inter partes review on the grounds presented.” slip op. at 16
Claim constructioncites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,232,168
Holdings, summaries, rulings, issues, outcomes, winners and claim constructions shown for a decision were generated by a large language model reading the opinion. They are a guide to the decision, not the decision. Confirm every one against the court's own text before relying on it. Outcomes read from the patent owner’s side. Party names are extracted from the decision and are missing on about 900 short Director denials and scans, which carry the trial number instead.